Thursday, 28 August 2008

67 days to go…….


It probably seems to most of you that I am showing a rather unusual and unhealthy interest in the forthcoming US Presidential Elections, and to a certain degree I suppose that is true, after all I cannot actually vote for anyone. However, this being 2008, and the USA being the world superpower that it is, there is little to stop me sharing my views on what essentially could prove to be the most important election in recent history. Of course it could be argued that either of the last two could carry that title, with Al Gore inexplicably losing to Bush in 2000 and Kerry doing likewise in 2004. However, that, as they say, is history, and therefore not worth dwelling on here.

So, today Barak Obama was officially confirmed as the democratic candidate, joining his republican counterpart John McCain in the race for the Whitehouse. And, as the title suggests, there are a little over two months left until voting day. What can we expect in the meantime? Well, no doubt a good deal of mudslinging from both sides, McCain and his team trying to point out Obama’s lack of experience, his flip-flopping during the primaries on key issues and ultimately the fact that he didn’t win the Democratic nomination until very late in proceedings, which although in itself is neither here nor there, it does suggest he is only barely the favourite among his own party. And from Obama’s side there will be plenty of suggestions that McCain is too old for the job, too out of touch with the modern electorate and like the man he hopes to succeed his grasp of the economy is feeble at best.

But strangely for a political contest one thing we won’t hear much about is policies. In the UK the main parties publish their election manifestos ahead of time to give people, in theory at least, a chance to make an informed choice. As I have previously mentioned on these pages they rarely stick to these promises anyway, so in many respects the point is moot. However, the absence of true political debate is highly indicative of the current state of world politics.

Essentially, the two candidates will fight for the Presidency over policy details rather than actual policies. The reason is that the election in the US, as with the election in the UK, will be won and lost in the centre ground. Gone are the days of left leaning socialists or hard line right wingers, politics today is a game of popularism, appealing to the most people while upsetting as few as possible. One reason for this of course is the proliferation of capitalism, arguably the best economic theory until the next one. As a result the traditional left wing parties such as Labour, the SPD, the PS or indeed the Democrats, have nothing to argue in favour of, their “viable” alternative having died a death in all but three or four countries of the world. As such they have had to modify their ideologies (new Labour anyone?) in order to find a base of support from which to launch a leadership bid. Equally for traditionally right wing parties like the Conservatives, the CDP, UMP or Republicans the case against voting for the opposition has all but disappeared.

It’s politics Jim, but not as we know it.

So over the next few weeks Obama and McCain will be fighting over details, and as a result the outcome is difficult to predict. Obama has momentum on his side, McCain has pragmatism on his. Both have huge support within their parties, the key battle will therefore be the independent, or undecided voters, and the eventual victor will be the man most capable of luring enough of this group to the polls.

I think my colours have been firmly nailed to the mast over the course of the last year or so regarding who I want to win. And given the recent rock star tour of Europe it seems most of the continent agrees with me, if I could vote I would put a cross next to the name Barak Obama. Except in Texas of course where doing so would somehow result in Bush getting a third term.

So, the question on everone’s lips, is “how can Obama win?” By the way, I am secretly hoping that Mr Obama himself googles that very question over the coming days and ends up here!

In my opinion, the answer is very simple. Three words sum up the ineptitude of the current administration, “Iraq” “Katrina” “Subprime”. In many respects, the election is Obama’s to lose, but as we have seen that means little in US politics. But there is a difference here, and it plays to Obama’s great strength.

All three events named above have one thing in common, namely their impact on “Everyday America” – the people like you and me who go to work everyday to earn a modest living and who in the last 8 years have lost family members to war, homes to natural disaster and financial mismanagement and ultimately faith in the ability of their government to do just that, govern. The very principle of democracy, and let us not forget that the US claims to be the world’s greatest democracy, is that the government is answerable to the people, and should act in their interests. Bush and his cronies have done the very opposite.

If Obama has proven one thing over the last few months, it is his ability to appeal to a large cross section of the population, largely due to his polished skills as an orator and his use of technology as an election tool. But, and here is the point, if Obama can harness these skills and simplify his message to appeal to a yet broader range of people he stands a real chance of winning with ease. And what should that message be? Simple, return America to the land of the free, reignite the American dream and reclaim the land of hope and glory. Sounds cheesy I know, and I’m a bit ashamed for using those terms, but for once I actually believe them.

In a world of economic and military instability, where frankly America’s standing in the world is slipping daily, there is only one way to win the election – freedom. Freedom from trading constraints and protectionism, freedom from military conflict, freedom from the cronyism that has sullied previous administrations, freedom from crippling medical costs, freedom from being seen as the most dangerous rogue state on the planet. Easier than it sounds maybe, but given the current wave of momentum in his favour, if anyone can achieve it…….
Till whenever.....

Monday, 18 August 2008

T'Olympics.

What better time for me to write a little something about the Olympic Games in Beijing? (well, before they began would have been good I suppose but...) I am talking of course about the successful weekend for "Team GB" as the press insist on calling our team of athletes. 8 Golds in two days is good going by anyones standards, even more so when you consider that prior to the Games our hopes were been talked down. So, congratulations Team GB, even if yours truly is slightly dubious about the merits of some of the sports we won gold in...

....I'm sorry but i can't help it. It is Monday evening and I have just watched the highlights of the weekend, rowing, cycling and sailing dominated proceedings, seemingly for a Brit to win a medal it helps to be sitting down. In my understanding the Olympics were conceived to test the relative merits of men and women, to find out who was the fastest on their feet, who had the endurance to compete over long distance, and who was the strongest person in the world....at no point did the Ancient Greeks want to find out who was the best BMX rider, or Baseball team, or Trampoliner! Essentially the original events revolved around track and field events, with a bit of wrestling and boxing thrown in for good measure - the Olympic motto is : Citius Altius Fortius, or faster, higher, stronger to you and me. Nowadays it seems that anything can get a time slot in the Games, and in my opinion that cheapens the Games, and also the individual sports and their respective international tournaments. Take Football for example, World Cup every four years, European Championships, African Nations Cup, Confederation Cup, Copa America......all opportunities for countries to test themselves on the world stage. So why bother having football in the Olympics? The same goes for practically all team sports, the Olympics are a test for individuals, not teams.

I know it sounds like I am not entering into the spirit of things much here, but come on, we won a medal in Kayaking the other day!

Another thing that comes to mind with the Olympics is the issue of drugs and doping. Testing is on the increase and there is mounting pressure from within the sports for drugs cheats to be named and shamed, but unfortunately, like the Tour de France, many athletes competing in Beijing will have taken drugs and win medals – whether we catch them remains to be seen. One medallist has already been caught, the guy who took silver in the pistol shooting apparently. Two things spring to mind, 1) what the hell was he taking to help him fire a gun?! 2) why the hell is pistol shooting in the Olympics?!

On a more positive note the Americans are having a decidedly average Olympics, at least according to the rest of the world. The Medal table, which is the accepted measure of success, lists China in first place, the USA in second and Team GB in third. Countries are listed according to the number of Gold medals they have won, this has been the system used for decades……..yet for reasons best known to the American TV network NBC, they have proclaimed their own team the current leader based on total medals won, not just Gold. It remains to be seen if by the same token they will count a 4x100m victory as 1 medal, or 4! To be fair though, the Jamaicans will win that anyway if Usain Bolt manages to actually sprint the full distance for once, rather than cruising the last 30m!


Right, enough for now!